The Slow Death Of Free Speech

[silverfaun]

A scroller but intensely interesting to anybody who cares about our rights and freedom.

How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate —  from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

April 2014

These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:

• In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of  effing Zionist, effing  pr…..… Get the eff  off our campus.’

• In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

• At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

• In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.

• In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.

• And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/?

[freakiness]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

I don't know. I didn't bring it up as an example of allowable racial vilification and inciting race hatred.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

I’m at lose as to determine how any of the three examples you cited, and to which I responded, would even remotely fall within the definition of “to vilify/vilification”

I mean the first was a flat refusal to provide information, with the second being a simple expression of support.  This then leaves the third, where Abbott referred the woman journalist as “Madam”, which to me, in the context of how it appears to have been said, was quite rude and  condescending, but falls far short of “to vilify”

---

Refer post 32.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

You're telling the story.  "It seems we do"

What has happened since the story was published? Was he arrested? Is he still in the country?

Surely the case has progressed since August last year.

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

Because no one took action.

Bernardi complained to the media, and then the police investigated. But until someone who was named (ie. one of the armed forces or Howard) takes action, then the police aren't able to charge him. Unless he carries out on threats or unless someone else does on his behalf.

The act is enforced when action is taken from a victims perspective.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Indeed we are subjected to threads like the 100 days of lies and broken promises and the other equally offensive lying Stinking Govt thread.

Not to mention "The Rotting Hulk Of The Good Ship Labor."

Right wing or left wing; vitriolic rhetoric destroys the credibility of any argument.

[icyfroth]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

I don't know. I didn't bring it up as an example of allowable racial vilification and inciting race hatred.

---

but you asked the question.

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

You're telling the story.  "It seems we do"

What has happened since the story was published? Was he arrested? Is he still in the country?

Surely the case has progressed since August last year.

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

Because no one took action.

Bernardi complained to the media, and then the police investigated. But until someone who was named (ie. one of the armed forces or Howard) takes action, then the police aren't able to charge him. Unless he carries out on threats or unless someone else does on his behalf.

The act is enforced when action is taken from a victims perspective.

---

Thank you martini, that's exactly right. Aussies didn't get outraged enough that's why. We have freedom of speech don't you know.

Now imagine if the situation had've been reversed and an Aussie religious leader had've got up on a pulpit and called for death to Jews Buddhists and Hindus, and called muslim soldiers rude names.

Now that would've been racial villification and hate speech and against the law and the outrage would've been enormous.

[freakiness]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Apparently not. Or not that's been published. Why do you think that is?

---

I don't know. I didn't bring it up as an example of allowable racial vilification and inciting race hatred.

---

but you asked the question.

---

I didn't ask any question that lead to the post about a muslim cleric using hate speech.

[icyfroth]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And in case you haven't noticed, we DO have freedom of speech in Australia.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

---

It seems we do:

An Adelaide Islamic preacher is under police investigation after he was filmed calling for all Buddhists and Hindus to be killed.

Detectives are examining the sermon given by Sheikh Sharif Hussein, who has previously been visited by the intelligence services, in which he described Australian soldiers as "Crusader pigs”.

In the video clip, published online this week by the US-based Middle East Media Research Institute, the preacher attacked Jews, former Prime Minister John Howard and US President Barack Obama.

Click Through To Rest Of Article And Video

---

Here I've copied your questions and my answers. Your questions are in red.

Why are the police investigating?

---

lol you're a funny girl, freaki! Why didn't you click throught the link to find out? That's what I put it there for.

Or did you mean: why are they investigating instead of arresting?

---

You're telling the story.  "It seems we do"

What has happened since the story was published? Was he arrested? Is he still in the country?

Surely the case has progressed since August last year.

---

Here is Martini's excellent answer:

"Because no one took action.

Bernardi complained to the media, and then the police investigated. But until someone who was named (ie. one of the armed forces or Howard) takes action, then the police aren't able to charge him. Unless he carries out on threats or unless someone else does on his behalf.

The act is enforced when action is taken from a victims perspective."

and here is my response to that:

"Thank you martini, that's exactly right. Aussies didn't get outraged enough that's why. We have freedom of speech don't you know.

Now imagine if the situation had've been reversed and an Aussie religious leader had've got up on a pulpit and called for death to Jews Buddhists and Hindus, and called muslim soldiers rude names.

Now that would've been racial villification and hate speech and against the law and the outrage would've been enormous."

now go ahead and ask me what boardrooms all this was decided in.

[tall_bearded]

I would have thought this is a perfect example underlining benefits of freedom of speech.

These people exist.   They are real, and can pose a significant danger.  But first you have to recognise them for what they are.

First scenario, it is a criminal offence to sprout this kind of garbage in a public forum.  Does it mean the hate goes away?  Does it mean the attitudes or beliefs that underpin iit have gone away.  Does it mean this person has been stopped from finding others who are like minded?  The answer to all of the before mentioned is an emphatic NO.  The hate still exists.  All that has happened is that it has been driven underground.  Out of sight, therefore blissfully out of harms way.  That is until the next plane is flown into the next building.

No let’s take the alternative view.  Though one finds the man and his beliefs somewhat distasteful to use a neutral term, he is free to sprout whatever garbage he likes.  Now he’s out in the open, he, and those who support him are recognisable for what they are.  Most importantly, we know who they are, and, as such we can guard ourselves against them, if words subsequently turn to action.

[freakiness]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

I don't need you to red text all my comments like some old school marking.

The question went to Martini's comment and the response, as copied.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

---

It seems we do:

Why would the police investigate if nothing was done wrong?  

Yes, Martini provided an answer so there was probably no need for your little rant with red.